Recently in Canonical Category

Ches of the Sensible Bond has just written a very touching post explaining his journey back to the heart of the Church from the SSPX. Do take time to read it, and it is one of the best posts I have ever read on the topic (click here).

Ches mentions that he seriously began to reconsider the SSPX's position vis-a-vis Rome after Fr. Paul Aulagnier's controversial interview with the Wanderer. I remember that interview well. Father knew going into the interview that he was risking expulsion from the Society; however, he chose to do so anyway, stating that schism was becoming a bigger risk with each passing day.

For those who are not up-to-date on their traditionalist history, the first risk proved real. The SSPX expelled Father when it hit the streets. The event shocked many within the traditionalist world because Fr. Aulagnier had been the true founder of the SSPX (rallying the initial group of SSPX seminarians and coaxing Archbishop Lefebvre out of retirement), the first cleric ordained for the SSPX (and the only one ever ordained licitly for them), and the SSPX cleric closest to the Archbishop.

At the time, Campos had just reconciled and Rome had laid down a serious offer for the SSPX. Fr. Aulagnier felt the time had come for the SSPX to accept Rome's offer, stating that conditions had improved since 1988 and the Archbishop would have accepted the offer were he alive. More importantly - and boldly given the SSPX tendency to close ranks - Father warned that the SSPX was headed toward what he perceived as a "psychological schism" among traditionalists, who had never experienced the memory of Rome.

Here is the text of the interview, as it appeared in the Wanderer four or five years ago:
*****************************************
Those who know the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) know Fr. Paul Aulagnier: He was among Archbishop Lefebvre's first class of SSPX seminarians, the first French seminarian to be ordained into the SSPX, and one of the SSPX's strongest proponents of the episcopal consecrations in 1988. As a former assistant to the superior general, Fr. Aulagnier and Archbishop Lefebvre remained close until the archbishop's death.

Recently, Fr. Aulagnier has spoken in favor of a SSPX reconciliation with Rome. Luc Gagnon, a correspondent from Quebec, interviewed Fr. Aulagnier for The Wanderer. The Wanderer noted, "While some major differences remain over some of our positions at The Wanderer and those of Fr. Aulagnier, we are nevertheless encouraged by Fr. Aulagnier's honesty and good faith in seeking a resolution to the current division between the SSPX and Rome. Along with Fr. Aulagnier, we invite our readers to pray for an end to this division."

Indeed, many pray that the Rome gets serious about indults, and wide, generous access to the holy, timeless, and powerful Tridentine Mass, as SSPX has.

###

Q. Since you are the first French priest ordained for the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, were you close to Archbishop Lefebvre? How did he inspire you?

A. Yes, I was close to Archbishop Lefebvre. I knew him well and I strongly appreciated him. He was so cordial, pleasant, a great prelate, but humble, simple, thoughtful for those who surrounded him. He had heart. It was difficult to not love him. He had a magnetic personality. I knew him while during my seminary days at Santa Chiara, the French Seminary in Rome. We were in the midst of the Second Vatican Council in 1964. The seminarians followed, as much as they could, this ecclesiastical event.

The seminary professors often invited a particular conciliar father to spend the evening with us. They were of every tendency. It certainly brought some of us joy to hear Archbishop Lefebvre on the two or three occasions he was invited. Differing from the others, he spoke little about the council. Rather he spoke about the priesthood to which we desired Ordination. Like several of my fellow seminarians, I appreciated his presentation of the Catholic priesthood.

In the midst of the council, everything was changing. In a university seminary, minds react quickly, undergo influences, and seek to understand. We participated at the seminary in all the systematic changes of everything - of the common life, of the house rules, of theology, of scholastics. In the midst of this spiritual and intellectual agitation, we needed to be careful, to reflect, to inquire, and to read a lot in order to remain informed.

We painstakingly followed such journals as Nouvelles de Chrétienté, Itinéraires, and La Pensée Catholique to follow the conciliar debates. Without these journals, I do not know if I would be a priest today. Without Archbishop Lefebvre, I certainly would not be. The superiors of the French seminary would not have accepted me. My mind was not open to the proposed novelties.

Our little group of traditional seminarians quickly saw ourselves becoming the object of criticism. When many of us were refused tonsure in 1968, we turned to Archbishop Lefebvre. Having resigned as superior general of the Spiritans, Archbishop Lefebvre was now free to found a seminary in Fribourg, Switzerland. I remember when he approached Bishop Charriere of Fribourg about this project. The bishop accepted it and even encouraged him. The archbishop saw the finger of God.

I became part of the first class of nine seminarians. My diocesan bishop at the time authorized the transfer. Being the most experienced seminarian - I already had four years of seminary under my belt - gave me the opportunity to become close to Archbishop Lefebvre. During walks, he would gladly converse with us. He even confided in us spontaneously, spoke of his projects, of his priestly ideal, of his hesitations. He often shared his African memories, his memories of the council, his decision to publish his essay, "To Remain Catholic, Must We Become Protestant?"

This essay explains the whole of Archbishop Lefebvre. He hated the modern world's revolutionary spirit that refused subjection, submission, subordination to a created order, to a divine order. Archbishop Lefebvre had been formed by the thinking of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XII. These were his masters. He remained faithful to them all his life. For Archbishop Lefebvre, God as Trinity is everything.

Q. What functions did you have in the heart of the SSPX before coming to Quebec?

A. My "ecclesiastical career" is simple. I served three years as a professor and the sub-director of our seminary in Econe, and 18 years as district superior in France. Along with my confreres, I built the French district from two houses in 1976, when Archbishop Lefebvre entrusted me with this district. My brother priests and I worked hard over the next 18 years to found priories, churches, chapels, schools, journals, and retreat houses.

When my mandate expired in 1994, I needed a break and went to England. I was always a rebel. In 1995, I asked to be installed in Normandy. I loved the Normands. I left Normandy after founding DICI, an information agency. It was a new form of apostolate for me and I had a passion for it.

In 2001, I was made superior of an autonomous house in Brussels. Then, "no longer in the good books" with the SSPX's leadership, I spent another sabbatical year in Quebec. As I became more and more vocal about my differences with the direction taken by the SSPX leadership, I resigned as assistant to the superior general. I had held this office since Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX. He had first appointed me to this office on November 1, 1969.

Q. Why were you strongly in favor of the consecrations of 1988?

A. I personally saw in it the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre. I knew he loved the Church, that he wanted to serve the Church. He did it all his life. He did it in Africa, for many years as apostolic delegate for francophone Africa. He knew the Church better than most. He had numerous contacts with Pius XII, with Roman congregations. He was appreciated by all, by many. He had the opportunity in his life to choose and prepare numerous bishops, to organize numerous episcopal conferences in Africa. As superior general of the Holy Ghost Fathers, he was in contact with all the great religious and political leaders of the world.

All this gave him experience and wisdom. He knew the Church in its internal structure. I trusted in him more than others. The consecrations were not an easy decision for him. I myself favored them. I could not see how Catholic Tradition, the Catholic priesthood, the Catholic Mass would survive without any assured episcopal succession. It is the bishop who ordains the priest. It is the priest who offers the Sacrifice of the Mass, renewing the Sacrifice of the Cross. This Sacrifice of the Cross is at the heart of the Church, as it is at the heart of the thinking of our Lord, at the heart of the divine plan of salvation. The Mass is essential to the Church, to the world, to any city.

With Archbishop Lefebvre gone, no bishop at that time possessed the courage to continue his work. One must never forget that. Our battle was always centered on the Mass. Thus, if Archbishop Lefebvre had not consecrated in 1988, his priestly work would have been finished. How can you maintain a seminary if you cannot ordain seminarians? How could you perpetuate the sacrifice of the Mass if there were no longer any priests? These are the simple reasons that allowed me to support the perspective of the consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Q. Do you think that the same reasons would be valuable today? Or are there any dangers in waiting for a reconciliation?

A. Today, the conditions would not allow for what was done in June of 1988. Several of my confreres will, perhaps, hit the roof when they become aware of this interview. It does not matter. I am free to state my judgment and I never liked yes men.

Why would the consecrations not be reasonable today? Because many Romans have changed and now acknowledge the very difficult situation in which the Church finds herself. Cardinal Castrillon's Mass of May 24, 2003 is not burning straw. This is the fruit of a long evolution which began, it seems, around 1992, with the publication of a series of books of Cardinal Ratzinger and a series of conferences, homilies, and an interview with Cardinal Stickler. At St. Mary-Major, Cardinal Castrillon spoke for the Church by recalling the "right of citizenship" of the Mass of St. Pius V.

Pope John Paul II's encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia vivit is also very important. Additionally, I think that there is a danger in seeing this conflict last for ages. The Church is a visible and hierarchical society. If one lives too long in an autarchy, one ends up losing the meaning of what a hierarchy is. We are thus in danger, the time passing and the opposition remaining, of forgetting Rome and organizing ourselves more and more outside of Rome. This needs to be acknowledged.

This is why we must always remain in contact with Rome, not only for them to progress in the right direction, but unceasingly to remind ourselves of their good memory. We are of the flock. If we remain satisfied with our situation, then there is a danger of "psychological schism." The young people are of my opinion. I call it as it is. The SSPX leadership thinks I exaggerate, but our younger generations have never known a normal ecclesiastical situation. Thus I have accepted "this Canadian exile" for my ideas.

Q. Why do you believe that the reconciliation of Bishop Rifan and his priests is a positive step not only for the traditionalists of Campos, but for every traditional Catholic?

A. One reason is the danger of schism which I just expressed. Secondly, my friendship with these heroic priests has led me to experience their traditional parishes and their numerous works. I have especially seen even here the problem of the Mass. The attitude of Rome is new. Rome gave the Mass to our friends, the priests of Campos. And this freely and without condition. Rome recognizes their right, their facultas to celebrate the Traditional Mass in all the churches of their apostolic administration. I studied their statutes at length. So, for me, these things are going in the right direction in favor of the Mass.

The Campos agreement did not require the compromises made by the Ecclesia Dei institutes in 1988. Campos received a frank recognition of the right to the Tridentine Mass without having to recognize that the new Mass is "legitimate and orthodox." They were simply asked to recognize the validity of the new Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre always recognized and taught that the new Mass was valid. There is a great difference between "validity," "legitimacy," and "orthodoxy." Something can be valid without being legitimate and orthodox.

Q. Many priests of your Society, including Bishop Fellay, have praised the new encyclical of the Holy Father Ecclesia de Eucharistia. Do you consider the new encyclical to be a positive sign on the doctrinal and liturgical level?

A. Yes and greatly so. This encyclical is truly a positive sign on the doctrinal and liturgical level. One sees here an authority that is newly aware of the drama which affects the Church and her liturgy. The liturgical reform, such as it was conceived and applied after the council, has denatured the liturgy by not respecting its end. The liturgy is essentially worship rendered to God. The priest offers, in the name of the people, "for the living and the dead," for the people who are united to this action, the sacrifice of Christ which renders to God "all honor and all glory."

The Catholic liturgy has a transcendent dimension. It orients us toward God. It subjects us to God. There is a similarity between the Roman liturgy and the heavenly liturgy. Read the Book of the Apocalypse of St. John and you will see that heavenly worship is directed toward the Father and the Lamb of God, the paschal Lamb to whom the angels and the elect sing and magnify the power, the divinity, the glory, the sanctity of God. The Sanctus of our Mass is a divine praise. All this is, for many, lost, so much so.

The Catholic hierarchy is finally aware of it. It is never too late in order to do good. It wants to correct the "shadows." How can one not rejoice at this? This is yet another reason why I favor our superiors legalizing our situation in the Church. It is necessary today to be inside with a recognized right of the Mass of St. Pius V on the altars of Christianity. One must have the sense of what is possible. To ask too much is to ask for nothing. The Holy Father has spoken. We must help and participate in the liturgical restoration in the Church.

Q. At the time of the Mass of May 24, 2003, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos said during his homily: "The old Roman rite thus conserves in the Church its right of citizenship in the heart of the multiformity of Catholic rites whether Latin or Eastern. What unites this diversity of rites is the same faith in the eucharistic mystery, thus its profession has always assured the unity of the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." Do you believe that this affirmation is correct or not?

A. Yes, I have greatly appreciated the words of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos on May 24, 2003. They were not pronounced lightly. They were weighed by the cardinal. He knew their importance, their repercussions in the Church, their effects and consequences. He paid attention, believe me, to what he was saying. He recognized the right of the Tridentine Mass in the Church. He stated the law for good: The Mass of St. Pius V has never been abolished canonically by any authority in the Church, and certainly not by Pope Paul VI. This was, in 1986, the answer given by the Commission of Cardinals appointed by John Paul II. This commission, at the time, stated the law. This did not please the modernist wavelength. One had, out of weakness, hushed up the affair. It was necessary to wait until 1995 for an ecclesiastical authority, Cardinal Stickler, to dare reveal the thing and state the law publicly: "The Mass has not been abolished."

Today, everyone says this. All the cardinals who thought over the question are saying this. Cardinal Medina says this, after having said quite the opposite in 1999. Cardinal Arinze as well. He is the prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship. He is the authority on this subject. As for Cardinal Stickler, he is a canonist whose authority is recognized. Cardinal Ratzinger, who is the workhorse of liturgical restoration in the Church, says it in all his recent books. He also assisted Pope John Paul II in the editing of the Holy Father's latest encyclical we have mentioned. This new honesty is extraordinary. Almost 40 years have gone by where everyone said quite the contrary.

Additionally, the return of the Mass of St. Pius V will not be done in one day. It takes its time, little by little. Regarding liturgical plurality on which Cardinal Castrillon is rooted, I am, of course, in favor to the degree where the "reform of the reform" will allow the rite of the parishes to come closer, little by little, to the Traditional rite. In herself, the Church has always respected liturgical diversity. Take note of the attitude of Pope St. Pius V! Here, there was a matter of a rite which will re-traditionalize. The only condition required is that the rite in question expresses the Catholic faith.

Q. In the context of these positive stages, is the reconciliation of the SSPX with Rome possible in the near future?

A. One Mass does not establish a custom. Thus I will speak about restoration of normal relations between Catholics of goodwill. This restoration is more than desirable. It is necessary. In a month? In three years? I do not know. Yet the more that time passes, the more the restoration becomes urgent. But again, minds must be prepared.

Q. Do you think that the recent transfer of Bishop Williamson to Latin America has a link with the eventual reconciliation of the SSPX and Rome?

A. I believe it was simply routine. One should not imagine conflicts or hidden reasons where none exist. Granted, Bishop Williamson is one of the most firm opponents to a reconciliation with Rome. But that has nothing to do with his transfer to Argentina. He will likely remain opposed in La Reja. He is suspicious in nature. And suspicion leads to error. He thinks that "the Romans," as he likes to say, have not changed. It is his opinion. This opinion is dominant with Bishop Fellay today, but will it be tomorrow?

Q. Considering your friendship and close proximity with Archbishop Lefebvre, do you think that he would have accepted the offer of reconciliation that Rome had recently presented to the SSPX in the line of the accords of Campos?

A. I sincerely believe that today Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted an accord with Rome. He would have been, perhaps, more cautious and demanding on certain points than Bishop Rangel, but the archbishop would have gone to the end this time. The requirements Rome demanded of the Campos traditionalists are these: the recognition of Pope John Paul II as the legitimate Successor of Peter, the recognition of the Second Vatican Council interpreted in the light of Tradition, the recognition of the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae, and a free discussion of the council that avoided dialectic and polemic. Archbishop Lefebvre had already accepted this in 1988. One should not be afraid to say this, and I wish someone would tell me why they should not be accepted today.

With regard to the obligation of the Campos priests to study the council, I would like someone to show me the harmfulness of such a thing. One can reasonably criticize what one knows. How did the SSPX have symposiums, form its position except by studying the council? Our position is certainly not that of the Roman hierarchy. Thus today a free discussion of the council is indispensable. Yesterday, it was impossible. And for this, it is very important to know the council. It is amusing that, with us, there are taboos. One needs to set these aside. Archbishop Lefebvre would have asked some precise questions concerning the council.

Additionally, through an apostolic administration, we would have better protection today than in 1988. Our bishops, recognized by Rome, would have this role of protector that Archbishop Lefebvre desired in the Roman commission he proposed. And a personal apostolic administration would change nothing of what we do and of what we are. It is the ideal situation. It would basically espouse the reality that we live and that we are familiar with. It is organizational pragmatism that would establish "legally" in the eyes of all what we do, which is fundamentally legal and legitimate.

Q. In closing, we wish to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to share some of your thoughts with us, and we would also invite our readers to visit your web site at: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/item.tradition

Just got back from a wonderful family vacation to Mackinac Island where our family celebrated July 4th with the Catholic parish in St. Ignace by going on a vesper's cruise. What could be more glorious than celebrating America's birthday amidst fireworks while singing the Divine Office with 300 other people?

The news that another group of Traditional Catholics have reconciled with the Church!

CWNews.com has the scoop:

TRANSALPINE REDEMPTORISTS RECONCILED WITH HOLY SEE

Rome, Jul. 2 (CWNews.com) - The Transalpine Redemptorists, a small traditionalist community on the island of Orkney, has been reconciled with the Holy See, the Rorate Caeli blog has revealed. Father Michael Mary, the vicar general of the Transalpine Redemptorists, announced on the group's own blog that the community had been informed that the suspension of its priests has been lifed by the Vatican. "All canonical censures have been lifted," he said, and the group has been welcomed into "undisputed communion" with the Holy See. The traditionalist leader said that he had "humbly petitioned" the Vatican for a restoration of communion, in a June 18 meeting with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the president of the Ecclesia Dei commission. The Vatican replied positively on June 26, he reported. Father Michael Mary expressed his gratitude, and that of the Transalpine Redemptorists, to Pope Benedict XVI, "for issuing, last July, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum which called us to come into undisputed and peaceful Communion with him."

Oremus!

Let us continue to pray that the SSPX will soon follow.

Actually, Rich, an excommunication can be administered in two ways:

- as a penalty after a judicial trial (ferendae sententiae)
- declared if incurred automatically by the individual's action (latae sententiae) if he or she violates a law that carries with it the penalty of excommunication.

Schism is one such action. Schism is failure to subject oneself to the Roman Pontiff, or to act in communion with those in communion with the Roman Pontiff. In this case, the bishop is stating that the mystic refuses to subject herself to him - he being the lawful bishop in communion with the Roman Pontiff. This carries an automatic excommunication for schism when the refusal is obstinate and on-going.

For more explanation on this topic, see my article published last summer in This Rock Magazine, "Strong Medicine: Canon Law and Excommunication". Or better yet (shameless plug alert) check out a copy of my new book with Michael Trueman, just recently released, Surprised by Canon Law, Volume 2.

For years, the Korean bishops have been trying to stop the activities of would-be mystic Julia Kim (now Julia Youn) at Naju, Korea. She claimed to have a weeping statue of Our Lady; she claimed to suffer the stigmata; she claimed that the Eucharist turned into visible, bloody flesh in her mouth, including in 1995 when she received the Sacred Host from Pope John Paul II.

The Archdiocese of Kwangju issued several declarations against the claims of supernatural miracles in the case, and on January 21 of this year, the confrontation reached a decisive point when the Archbishop of Kwangju declared Youn and those who participate in her activities excommunicated for grave disobedience.

Although my sympathies are with the bishop, parts of the canonical decree seem odd: e.g., I'm not sure that canon law allows for a latae sententiae excommunication for the sort of disobedience the Archbishop cites. (E.g., see the SJF's discussion of c1371.) On the other hand, the decree seems to treat adherence to Mrs. Youn's claims as a matter of schism. Perhaps Pete Vere or Ed Peters (keeper of the "Excommunication Blotter") will be able to clarify this for the good of the faithful.

A press report is on-line at Mirifica, and also follows after the jump...

I must disagree with Deal Hudson's latest column attempting to interpret Bishop Paprocki squeaking out Archbishop Burke for chair of the USCCB's canon law committee.

I have nothing but respect for Archbishop Burke. Back when he was bishop of Lacrosse, WI, his chancellor Ben Nygen and I often consulted on canonical issues that would prove controversial in the media. Archbishop Burke would have been an excellent candidate for the position.

But Bishop Paprocki is also an excellent candidate. He may not be as visible in media, but he is extremely respected in canon law circles for his orthodoxy and his knowledge of the law. He too has given me excellent advice when approaching the media with controversial points touching upon canon law, and I have been the recipient of his hospitality at canon law conventions or when visiting Chicago. And like Archbishop Burke, he too is not scared to publicly correct politicians who pass legislation at odds with Church teaching. This was the case here.

It was during my last visit to Chicago that Bishop Paprocki invited Michael Trueman and I to breakfast, and urged us to begin writing Surprised by Canon Law volume 2. The book, which was released by Servant last week, is available by clicking here. Bishop Paprocki is one of the individuals who encouraged us to write it.

This is one of the reasons I'm happy to be a lay canonist and not a bishop. Both men were strong, orthodox, knowledgeable candidates for the chair. I don't know which one I would have voted for.

Which is why I disagree with Deal that this is a sign of the USCCB giving Archbishop Burke the shaft. Given the caliber and orthodoxy of these two bishops, I think the real sign here is that the USCCB is committed to moving in the right direction with regards to canonical issues.

I wasn't able to live-blog this afternoon's meeting about the future of Boston's Latin Mass parish, but I did send the news to Dom Bettinelli, who posted the info on his site.

Some of you have been asking me to comment on Ed Peters' reflection on Fr. Maciel's penance. As usual, I agree with Ed on some things but disagree with him on others. That being said, my perspective is going to be coloured.

Although I was never formally involved in the case, some of Fr. Maciel's more recent accusers approached me a few years ago for canonical advice. I heard their stories and I offered what canonical advice I could at the time.

I won't deny this experience shook my faith in the Church. I thank God for His sustaining grace during this time.

Yet there's an old expression in canon law that the petitioner's case seems overwhelming until the respondent opens his mouth. I never spoke to Fr. Maciel for his side of the story. Nor was I appointed to adjudicate this case.

Therefore, I don't feel that it would be appropriate to engage Ed in a public debate. I would, however, ask everyone to please keep both Fr. Maciel and his alleged victims, whose stories I found believable, in prayer.

Now the Fr. Maciel has been "invited" to relinquish all public ministry as a result of CDF's investigations into sixth-commandment violations, what will happen in the religious community he founded? Will the Legion of Christ continue to speak of him reverently as "our father"? Will it remain an order that appears to select its seminarians in part for their pretty-boy looks?

One has to have some sympathy for members of the LC and the Regnum Christi lay group; they're good Catholic folks, sound in faith, who do many good things. Yet the founder of those groups misled them about himself, and they have to come to terms with the fact that he apparently committed some heinous crimes. His personality, with its defects, shaped the culture of those groups, giving them some dysfunctional aspects, so those communities will need their own efforts at truth, reconciliation, and reform. Alas, the LC's spokesmen seem to be circling the wagons so far.

The canonical accusers deserve credit for telling their story against a popular figure praised by thousands, including Pope John Paul II. God bless them for their courage, and may He bring healing to whatever harm Maciel caused them.

(The VIS announcement follows, and John Allen's NCR report is on-line.)

Update: Ed Peters has a commentary.

Update 2: Here's a link to the Legion press release. Reader Michael Gorman spotted that the URL I cited earlier went to an old press release instead of today's. Thanks! While today's release does not deny the charges outright, it still maintains the idea of Maciel as a Suffering Servant, choosing "not to defend himself in any way". Perhaps it's too early to expect an expression of regret from Maciel for his actions, or from the LC for its erroneous defenses of him.

(Part One Here)

I found the Wanderer interview with Paul Likoudis where Bishop Bruskewitz offers the ten reasons why he refused to participate in the John Jay study:

"1) This study is not directed to developing programs for the protection of young people. . . . The study seems to be to satisfy curiosity.

"2) Serious sins against the Eighth Commandment are likely to be part of the result of the study: detraction, calumny, slander, contumely, etc.

"3) The study asks to include information even for inconclusive allegations and anonymous allegations.

"4) Many of the accused in the files of many dioceses are dead and will not be able to defend themselves.

"5) No equivalent study has ever been made in the United States so that there is no comparison to any other sector of people in the United States, such as Protestant ministers, public school teachers, doctors, youth ministers, artists, newspaper reporters, etc.

"6) The United States federal government Office of Health and Human Services refused to grant a certificate of confidentiality for the study as requested by the National Review Board.

"7) The reporting of the study does not promise to place into context the overwhelming number of priests who do not and did not ever commit any sexual abuse of minors.

"8) The study is skewed and inaccurate from the start because any self-reporting can include both inflation and deflation of information.

"9) About one-third of all the Catholic clergy in the United States are not included in the study, since religious orders and other communities (for instance, Jesuits, Dominicans, Benedictines, Franciscans, etc.) are not included.

"10) The administration of the USCCB [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops] which signed the contract with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice has given the ownership of all the information into the possession of the college."

Over at his blog, Dr. Ed Peters is asking whether Bishop Bruskewitz is right to refuse compliance with USCCB's review board. In a nutshell, the answer is yes. Dr. Peters might be a canonist, but so are Bishop Bruskewitz and Msgr. Thorburn (the Bishop's close advisor, closer friend and Vicar General.) In fact, both of these individuals were accomplished canonists before finding themselves in their current ecclesiastical office.

Now the tone of the good Bishop's letter is admittedly a tad combative, but this is more a matter of pastoral theology than canon law.

That being said, Peters appears to overlook the principles of canon law (and in this case the Divine law) that the Bishop is trying to uphold. The first is a very fundamental principle of natural justice: Every accused has the right to face his accuser. (See my blog entry above).

The Bishop has repeated asserted that the audit, as it is currently structured, violates this fundamental principle of justice. Having read the text of the John Jay questionaire myself, it appears to me (and I'm a canonist too) that the Bishop is right. Simply put, beyond other weaknesses that call into question the audit's methodology, the questionaire does not allow for an accused priest to defend himself.

I suspect this is why everyone keeps griping about Bruskewitz, but nobody actually challenges his "non-compliance" before the Roman Rota or the Congregation for Bishops. The universal law provides these two options for bringing about the correction of wayward bishops.

This is not the first time Bishop Bruskewitz has found himself in the middle of a controversy. This wouldn't be the first time his actions were challenged in Rome. Bishop Bruskewitz has always maintained he would willingly submit to the Holy See's decision if over-ruled in Rome.

I believe that the Bishop is a man of his word, however, this has never been put to the test. Why? Because the Holy See has always upheld his controversial actions/decisions.

Secondly, it is a matter of the Divine law that Christ instituted His Church as a hierarchy. Within this hierarchy, laypeople submit to Bishops, not Bishops to laypeople. No merely ecclesiastical law -- including the particular law establishing the national review board and its various derivatives -- can contradict the Divine law.

This is why the charter (at least the version given recognitio by the Holy See) establishes the review board and its derivatives as merely consultative. They have no binding power over any bishop. This is clear in the text of the charter itself. In fact it was clearly worded this way, at the Holy See's insistance, after some Bishops tried to give away too much power in the first couple of drafts. (Which is what got the bishops in trouble in the first place; many more-or-less abdicated their responsibilities to psychologists and other lay experts).

Here's a sampling of the text itself. Please note the words in bold:

Article 8

...The Committee is to advise the USCCB on all matters related to child and youth protection and is to oversee the development of the plans, programs, and budget of the Office of Child and Youth Protection. It is to provide the USCCB with comprehensive planning and recommendations concerning child and youth protection by coordinating the efforts of the Office and the National Review Board...

ARTICLE 9.

The Office for Child and Youth Protection, established by the Conference of Catholic Bishops, is to staff the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People and be a resource for dioceses/eparchies for the implementation of “safe environment” programs and for suggested training and development of diocesan personnel responsible for child and youth protection programs, taking into account the financial and other resources, as well as the population, area, and demographics of the diocese/eparchy...

ARTICLE 10.

The Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People is to be assisted by the National Review Board, a consultative body established in 2002 by the USCCB...

The Board will also advise the Conference President on future members...

While the Bishop may not be in compliance with the national review board, he is in compliance with canon law -- both universal and particular. He has heard the advice of the Review Board and its various derivatives, and he has chosen to reject it where he feels their advice conflicts with his obligation as a Bishop to uphold the natural principles of justice. He has also defended the proper role of the episcopacy against those who would attempt to usurp it.

Put another way, what is particular law is the implementation of the national review board as outlined in the charter. The charter clearly establishes the national review board as a consultative body with no actual coercive power over bishops.

Here is a third issue. Does Bishop Bruskewitz deny, in the words attributed to him, that the national review board and its derivatives have any standing under canon law? While his words admittedly appear to be those of understatement, ridicule and scorn, it seems to me that the answer is no when one looks at the actual words he uses. The Bishop is strait-shooter, but he is also a good canonist. You can bet he carefully crafted his comments.

Here's a line-by-line analysis.

Some woman named Patricia O'Donnell Ewers,

While not the most polite tone, I assume the bishop has correctly identified the name and gender of his accuser. It may be rude, but it is neither heretical nor schismatic.

who is the Chair of something called "A National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People",

Similar to above. His tone may be one of understatement and ridicule, but he seems to have correctly identified her title. The national review board is "something".

has said that her Board "calls for strong fraternal correction of the Diocese of Lincoln."

True. This is what her board is calling for.

The Diocese of Lincoln has nothing to be corrected for,

I personally believe this is true, as does every other canonist with whom I have discussed the Bishop's reaction to the national review board over the years (Dr. Peters being the only exception). Nevertheless, this appears to be the source of the controversy. As previously stated, the universal law provides the means for correcting wayward bishops. Let a canonist who disagrees with the Bishop take up the cause in Rome.

since the Diocese of Lincoln is and has always been in full compliance with all laws of the Catholic Church and with all civil laws.

Again, I believe this to be true. Note that Bishop Bruskowitz didn't say "in full compliance with all the recommendations of the national review board and/or its derivatives." This is not necessary since the board enjoys no legislative power; it was established in particular law as strictly an advisory board. If Bishop Bruskewitz is not in compliance with canon law or civil law, then please show me where.

Furthermore, Ewers and her Board have no authority in the Catholic Church

This is not how I would have worded it, but the statement is true. The board is advisory. This is clear from the charter. It is a matter of particular law. The board cannot bind a bishop.

and the Diocese of Lincoln does not recognize them as having any significance.

Brilliantly subjective. His Excellency does not say that he does not recognize the board; he simply states that he does not recognize the board as having any significance. Like any good canonist, he left himself some wiggle room.

[snip text which, although true, is irrelevant to controversy at hand, namely whether the Bishop is subject to the board]

The Diocese of Lincoln does not see any reason for the existence of Ewers and her organization.

Same as above. I agree with Amy Welborn that the Bishop should have made it clear he was not speaking of Ewers personally. I also think the tone is somewhat strong. I think this was a "teachable moment" and the Bishop should have used a more gentle tone to reach a broader audience rather than a New Oxford Review tone that distracts from the substantive issue being debated.

Nevertheless, this is a matter of pastoral theology and not canon law. And since my expertise is in the latter and not the former, I will leave the tone for pastoral theologians to debate.

The Bishop's statment is again subjective. He is expressing an opinion. He does not deny the board's existence or its mandate under canon law. He simply states he does not see the reason for it. He is well within his canonical rights to do so.

In the end, canon law -- both universal and particular -- is clearly on the side of Bishop Bruskewitz. The national review board may be a matter of particular law, but so are its limitations.